|
Post by feelfree222 on Apr 24, 2006 23:18:39 GMT -4
Truth seeker, I shared your opinion until recently, but a healthy dose of reality has come my way after really investigating the 9/11 conspiriacy theories. I've been engaged in a healthy debate with friends for weeks over this subject and having been convinced something was seriously amiss with the official 9/11 story. I even went as far as writing my own computer program to simulate the collapses to validate the theories about "free fall time" and the energies with in the twin tower collapse to see whether they add up. I was actually thinking of making an open source project out of it, if it hasn't already been done. I then came across a link to some papers by Dr. Frank Greening which provides excellent analysis in terms of physics and chemistry about the WTC collapses. What I found absolutely compelling about his paper is that the methods he applied to calculating free fall times and the energy systems are almost identical to how I started out. In my mind he has satisfied me that a gravitation collapse DOES in fact have a enough energy to fall in the time the twin towers fell, to pulverise the concrete to dust and perhaps even create the dust cloud observed. www.911myths.com/html/other_contributions.htmlGlad to meet someone with the skill to made his own simulation model. So can you work with Greening hypothetical model where he pretend than the collapse produce enough energy to transform 90 % of the concrete floors stuff into thin dust particles among other thing along with gyps walls and other furnitures. www.911myths.com/WTCREPORT.pdfAnd verified if he have still enough energy for explaining the expansion of the dust cloud always with the hypothesis than 90% of the concrete was transformed into thin particles.
|
|
|
Post by phunk on Apr 25, 2006 10:46:41 GMT -4
Don't you understand that he picked that 90% number not because he thought that was how much was actually turned to dust, but because he wanted to show that there was way more than enough energy for the much smaller amount that was turned to dust?
How much energy do you think was required to expand the dust cloud? By what mechanisms did the cloud expand? What are the energy sources for that expansion? If you can't answer any of those how can you possibly claim there wasn't enough energy?
|
|
|
Post by feelfree222 on Apr 26, 2006 1:31:24 GMT -4
Don't you understand that he picked that 90% number not because he thought that was how much was actually turned to dust, but because he wanted to show that there was way more than enough energy for the much smaller amount that was turned to dust? I understand Greening attempt perfectly... that is why in the addendum he reduce the amount of concrete forming the floors transformed into thin dust particles to 10 %. Now he have enough energy for the expansion of the dust cloud. That sound contradictory. In his first paper -WTCreport- he try to impress the gallery with his speculative calculations about the amount of energy available to account for the observations... However In the addendum when came the time to work his model -and try to oppose something to Hoffman calculations - suddently he need to reduce considerably the energy -allowed-to tranform into thin dust particles the concrete stuff from the floors Do you have evidence that only 10 % of the concrete stuff forming the floors were transformed into thin dust particles?Phunk wrote What are the energy sources for that expansion?Thermobaric bombs
|
|
|
Post by twinstead on Apr 26, 2006 5:35:38 GMT -4
"Thermobaric bombs" isn't an answer; it's ill-conceived conjecture. I could say that an alien death ray is what provided the energy, and there is no less evidence of that than a Thermobaric bomb.
But it sure sounds cool though.
|
|
|
Post by phunk on Apr 26, 2006 16:21:41 GMT -4
Don't you understand that he picked that 90% number not because he thought that was how much was actually turned to dust, but because he wanted to show that there was way more than enough energy for the much smaller amount that was turned to dust? I understand Greening attempt perfectly... that is why in the addendum he reduce the amount of concrete forming the floors transformed into thin dust particles to 10 %. Now he have enough energy for the expansion of the dust cloud. That sound contradictory. In his first paper -WTCreport- he try to impress the gallery with his speculative calculations about the amount of energy available to account for the observations... However In the addendum when came the time to work his model -and try to oppose something to Hoffman calculations - suddently he need to reduce considerably the energy -allowed-to tranform into thin dust particles the concrete stuff from the floors Do you have evidence that only 10 % of the concrete stuff forming the floors were transformed into thin dust particles?Phunk wrote What are the energy sources for that expansion?Thermobaric bombs You misunderstood the question. You say there wasn't enough energy for the expansion without bombs, so other than bombs, what sources did you take into account?
|
|
|
Post by feelfree222 on Apr 26, 2006 22:46:27 GMT -4
You misunderstood the question. You say there wasn't enough energy for the expansion without bombs, so other than bombs, what sources did you take into account? That is the extreme heat provided by the explosion of thermobarics
|
|
|
Post by phunk on Apr 27, 2006 11:28:30 GMT -4
Do you have trouble understanding the question or do you just refuse to answer?
Or is it that you can't answer because you have absolutely nothing to back up the claim that there wasn't enough energy without bombs.
|
|
|
Post by feelfree222 on Apr 28, 2006 1:26:11 GMT -4
Can you back up your claim or Greening claims that only 10% of the concrete stuff from the floors was tranformed into thin dust particle with evidences?
|
|
lenbrazil
Saturn
Now there's a man with an open mind - you can feel the breeze from here!
Posts: 1,045
|
Post by lenbrazil on May 1, 2006 10:26:52 GMT -4
Can you back up your claim or Greening claims that only 10% of the concrete stuff from the floors was tranformed into thin dust particle with evidences? You seem to have problems understaning plain English which is understandable since you are not a native speaker but it hinders your ability to follow the debate.
|
|
|
Post by feelfree222 on May 1, 2006 18:13:00 GMT -4
Can you back up your claim or Greening claims that only 10% of the concrete stuff from the floors was tranformed into thin dust particle with evidences? You seem to have problems understaning plain English which is understandable since you are not a native speaker but it hinders your ability to follow the debate. The question who is still debatable is about the quantity of concrete from the floor transformed into dust? Based upon everything observed on videos and picture the amount seem more than 10% That is the thing i question. I know also than the total of material transformed into dust is not limited to the concrete from the floors but came from the gyps walls and other construction material.
|
|
|
Post by Bill Thompson on May 1, 2006 19:31:28 GMT -4
It has been years but it still feels like yesterday. Or am I alone in feeling like this. 9-11 was a life changing event. To play with it like we are doing makes me feel uncomfortable.
Am I alone?
|
|
|
Post by echnaton on May 1, 2006 19:49:08 GMT -4
|
|
|
Post by Bill Thompson on May 1, 2006 19:54:03 GMT -4
Then we are not if we have this in common...? But to treat this as being an event conducted by the Men in Black is to somehow paint it as a comic-book event rather than something as serious as it really is. Or am I the only one thinking this way?
|
|
|
Post by jaydeehess on May 1, 2006 22:50:31 GMT -4
The CT crowd do indeed treat this as an MIB or James Bond style event. They look for Zebras when they hear hoofbeats. This is common in all conspiracy theories as all here have noticed with the Moon Hoax theories.
That in this particular case thousands of people died changes nothing in the desire to see a vast, complex, complicated and unneccessary conspiracy by TPTB.
|
|
|
Post by feelfree222 on May 1, 2006 22:54:43 GMT -4
Then we are not if we have this in common...? But to treat this as being an event conducted by the Men in Black is to somehow paint it as a comic-book event rather than something as serious as it really is. Or am I the only one thinking this way? Who talk about Men In Black ?It is rather the M.I.C. guys. Recently in the news ... Bush is the leader who can authorise a preventive nuclear strike against Iran. As far as I know Iran is not actually in possession of balistic nuclear missiles aimed in the direction of US territory? Sounds like the preventive war against Irak about the so called Weapons of Massive Destruction. Yes, Bush is the MAN put in place by the Military Industrial Complex guys ...
|
|